Posted on 03/08/2010 9:02:26 PM PST by SmithL
A Sacramento Superior Court jury has awarded a local-record $24.3 million in personal injury damages to a 14-year-old Oregon girl who was run over by a truck driven by her father six years ago.
The 10-woman, two-man panel made the damages award Friday in a case where Judge David W. Abbott in December already had found Freeway Transport, Inc., of Portland, liable for the injuries sustained November 2004 by Diana Luleidy Loza-Jimenez.
"We're thrilled to see that the jury appreciated the full magnitude of Diana's injuries," plaintiff's lawyer Robert A. Buccola said in an interview today. "She faces at least a dozen future surgeries and a life of serious disrepair."
Buccola and partner Steven M. Campora sued on the basis that Freeway Transport, an ancillary firm of the Oregon-based United Salad Co., acted as a "common carrier" that bore legal responsibility for hauling the load safely.
The jury awarded the girl $2.2 million for her past medical expenses, $2.1 million in future economic damages, $8 million for past non-economic losses such as pain and suffering and $12 million for future noneconomic losses.
The $24.3 million award is the largest personal injury award in Sacramento County history, . . .
Ottoson said the defense was precluded from telling the jury that the girl's father was driving the truck that injured her.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Women are more "feeling" and less "logical." (I'm a woman and can readily imagine how the feminization of America makes even the men cower when women are talking about "....how would you feel?")
Plaintiff no doubt painted trucking company as "uncaring" about the girl's injuries, let alone that her own dad's negligence caused the problem but logic goes out the door when there's that many women on the jury (at least today's version of Oprah watchers.)
A business is, generally speaking, liable for everything its employee does during the course/scope of his/her employment.
The girl will be lucky if she gets 30%. The lawyers will take the rest.
Damn near Unbelievable but...
Perhaps her last name can give us some clue as to why the fact that her father was not mentioned as the driver....
According to the article, the trucking co. is not planning to appeal.
You might want to make it a wee bit more so you can go out and get laid, because after the "running over," your sex life is essentially non existent. That's what I'm guessing a large portion of the 12 million for future non-economic losses is for.
Prayers for the injured little girl.
Totally absurd.
okay, now that I’ve actually read the article - it was the judge who found the company liable and the jury assessed the damages
“A business is, generally speaking, liable for everything its employee does during the course/scope of his/her employment.”
Kind of makes you wonder why they would employ anyone in such a hostile environment.
I just don't see how Buccola's argument is logical. In fact, it seems self contradictory since the point of the argument is the non contingency of the victim to the driver...and we know from the facts of the case that is not true. There does exist a contingency here, ergo, the argument must be rejected.
The defense was most likely handled by attorneys hired by the truckers’ insurance company(ies). Before they got to trial, there were probably many offers to settle, If the insurance company refused a reasonable good-faith settlement offer, it’s possible for the trucking companies to recover from the insurance companies for any award beyond their coverage.
The award could also be reduced through the appeals process. OR, as they are wont to do, the insurance company will drag out appeals so long, they will try to force the girl and her attorneys to settle for less than the jury granted.
If the cause of the accident was negligence regarding maintenance of the truck, WHO the driver was is irrelevant. I really don’t think any father is going to run over his own child so he can go to court years later and collect any amount of money.
You may have a point, but who knows how the defense would have handled the rebuttal....what arguments they would have made. Certainly, or at least I would think, fault would have been parsed and divided, which would then have had an impact on damages, probably more in line with what defense counsel had calculated: 8-15 mil.
According to court documents, Loza-Jimenez was injured during a trip she took with her father and other members of her family on a long-distance trucking haul when they stopped to take a break in the Mt. Shasta area.
When her father got back in the truck and began to move, the girl’s mother realized she wasn’t in the cab. Before the mother could get her husband to stop the truck, he ran over her with the rear wheels of the rig and crushed her pelvis, the documents said.
The next newspaper headline will be of a trucking company that fires an employee who brings the family with on one of his runs... and I am sure 90% of the people on here will berate the trucking company for their crazy rules.
Child endangerment, gross negligence, personal liablity....
and the scumbag lawyers will still get 60% plus expenses...
“Ottoson said the defense was precluded from telling the jury that the girl’s father was driving the truck that injured her.”
This is beyond insane. That judge should be removed from the bench immediately!!
The “scumbag lawyers’ probably had close to $500,000 invested in the case for expert witnesses, so they deserve whatever fee they got. Dreyer and Buccola do it right. They also won the case against the radio station that held a water drinking contest that led to the death of a young mother. They take big risks, and sometimes they make it pay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.